Posted December 30, 2014
I think I can write a book (ok, I am exaggerating) about all the things D&D do wrong. In the 2nd edition the main points were:
jdsgn: I agree. It's desirable to have a low armor class, that's kinda hard to swallow. The rule system is not bad, but in some points more difficultthan necessary.
-far too many characteristics values were useless; (by memory) the most extreme was Constitution with no difference between 7 to 15. For all characteristics the advantages become exponential toward the end. Of course there were some random extra rules.. you wanted to be a fighter? Throw until you get at least 18/90.
-incredibly counter intuitive multi-class system. Depending on the race you can mix classes in a different way; humans in particular with a rule (that made no sense) only for them. Incredible small print, multi class character take limits on the weapons for all classes, but advantages for armors. In fact a Druid/Fighter could use a metal armor, but no metallic weapons (a part of the scimitar, just to have an extra exception).
-depending on the context you needed big or small dice rolls.
-as all the D&D (at least 1st to 3th) a part of the very first levels caster are totally better than all classes as spells replace all abilities and Druids rule. In the game also Monks were quite powerful though, but they were not in the original pen and paper game.